[theforum] Brief notes on the sanctity of theforum, and double-standards relating thereto

[Tara Cleveland]

On 9/11/06, Matt Warden <mwarden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/11/06, Tara Cleveland <tara.cleveland at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't remember (approving) or having any type of real discussion about
> > adding a mission statement on the home page or what that mission
> statement
> > would contain. I do remember two emails where people discussed the
> > *possibility* of that happening.
>
> Then why didn't you say something?
>

Because, I was waiting for someone to actually produce something I could
comment on (ignoring for the moment that I was away all weekend and for this
reason these things are not usually proposed and decided upon over a
weekend).

>From what I could tell there were a few emails with the subject "drupal
blocks" discussing how one would go about adding a mission statement block.
Alan suggested he would like to add a mission statement (with approval). I
don't think he ever asked for or got that approval.

I was waiting for what should have been an email with a descripting subject
line like: "Can I add this mission statement to the home page?" with a link
to a mockup or a version of the mission statement on the evolt home page.
*That* would have been a request for approval.

In my experience, the process for approving what goes live on a website
where a group is making decisions goes something like this:

1. someone proposes something - testing the waters for their idea
2. people say "hey that's a good idea"
3. someone produces an example or mockup
4. said mockup gets commented upon/changes get made (ad infinitum)
5. mockup gets approved by group vote
6. final product gets put live on site.

In this case we skipped from step 2 to step 6. That's not cool.

This, to me, just proves that theforum is a waste. There is a
> fundamental problem here with trying to have some sort of "voting"
> process with an undefined body. We have had endless discussions about
> what constitutes a quorum
>

Well a quorum certainly does not equal two guys who are discussing something
how to do something in a thread with an obscure title. I'm not sure how this
particular instance can get used as an exuse to bemoan the lengthy
discussions that take place in theforum since this is exactly what *should*
get discussed before it goes live. What if Alan had put up a mission
statement that was fundamentally incorrect or had terrible spelling errors
(thank goodness he didn't)?

Yes it's true, a group of people working on a large project without a strict
hierarchy is a pain in the ass. It's more work, and things take longer. Does
that mean we should throw the collective decision making out the window and
come up with a new model? I don't think so. I think doing that will make
evolt into something that is no longer evolt.

But feel free to disagree with me. :-)

Cheers,
Tara